Safety First? The Role of Emotion in Safety Product Betrayal Aversion

Consumers often face decisions about whether to purchase products that are intended to protect them from possible harm. However, safety products rarely provide perfect protection and sometimes betray consumers by causing the very harm they are intended to prevent. Examples include vaccines that may cause disease and air bags that may explode with such force that they cause death. Expanding research on betrayal aversion, this study examines the role of emotions in consumers\u27 tendency to choose safety options that provide less overall protection in order to eliminate a very small probability of harm due to safety product betrayal. In five studies we find that betrayal aversion is reduced and safer alternatives are selected when factors that dampen the emotional response to potential betrayals are introduced or taken into account. These factors include changing the betrayal from an action to an omission (study 1), introducing positive imagery (study 2), introducing visual representations of risk (study 3), making the decision for another rather than oneself (study 4), and intuitive thinking style (study 5)

Marketing actions that influence estimates of others also shape identity

Consumers’ social identities stem from comparisons between themselves and others. These identities help determine consumption decisions. Unfortunately, perceptions of comparative traits and characteristics are frequently biased, which can lead to similarly biased consumption decisions. Five studies show that two incidental but commonplace marketing decisions can influence consumers’ estimates of their relative standing and thus their social identities by influencing estimates of how other consumers are distributed.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/142090/1/jcpy495.pd

The Editors

Luxury industry and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activates are generally considered as incompatible concepts by consumers. This because luxury is generally related to hedonism, excess, and ostentation, while CSR is generally based on sobriety, moderation and ethics. However, nowadays more and more luxury companies seem highly committed toward sustainability. For example, Tiffany started certifying its diamonds as “conflict free”, Chanel incorporated “earthy materials” in its 2016 collection, and Bulgari has recently funded restoration of Rome's Spanish Steps. Therefore, it seems plausible the presence of a certain compatibility degree between luxury and CSR activities. However, this issue has received very limited empirical investigation from marketing literature. As a consequence, the present research aims to empirically test whether and under what conditions consumers react to different kinds of luxury companies’ CSR initiatives. Using the Carroll’s four dimensions model of internal vs. external CSR, we argue and demonstrated that luxury companies’ internal (versus external) CSR initiatives increase willingness to buy luxury products, but mainly for those customers who buy luxury for internal motivations and not for status ostentation, as for example individual style and personal taste

Safety First? The Role of Emotion in Safety Product Betrayal Aversion

Consumers often face decisions about whether to purchase products that are intended to protect them from possible harm. However, safety products rarely provide perfect protection and sometimes betray consumers by causing the very harm they are intended to prevent. Examples include vaccines that may cause disease and air bags that may explode with such force that they cause death. Expanding research on betrayal aversion, this study examines the role of emotions in consumers\u27 tendency to choose safety options that provide less overall protection in order to eliminate a very small probability of harm due to safety product betrayal. In five studies we find that betrayal aversion is reduced and safer alternatives are selected when factors that dampen the emotional response to potential betrayals are introduced or taken into account. These factors include changing the betrayal from an action to an omission (study 1), introducing positive imagery (study 2), introducing visual representations of risk (study 3), making the decision for another rather than oneself (study 4), and intuitive thinking style (study 5)

Trickle Down Spending: The Role of Income Inequality on Gift Spending Decisions

© 2023 Journal of the Association for Consumer Research. <br><br>Deposited by shareyourpaper.org and openaccessbutton.org. We've taken reasonable steps to ensure this content doesn't violate copyright. However, if you think it does you can request a takedown by emailing [email protected]